David Woodhouse writes: > Why? What's so special about the name 'ttyS'?
It's the name that users of Linux expect built-in serial ports to have. > > The built-in ports can generally be enumerated early on boot in a > > stable order, and they should be assigned the low ttySn numbers, > > regardless of what chip is used to implement them. > > I don't see why that 'should' be the case. Certainly it _isn't_ the case > on most supported platforms -- we have separate device numbers, and > names, for most types of ports. There's only one or two drivers which > abuse ttySn for anything other than 8250 ports. It 'should' be the case because that is what is easiest for users and makes most sense from a user's point of view. You still haven't given any reason why a user should have to know or care whether the built-in serial ports on his/her computer are implemented with a 16C550 chip or a Z85C30 chip or something else. Now, *maybe* the naming can be fixed up with udev. I haven't invested the week of my life that it would take to investigate the twisty maze of shell scripts that udev seems to involve. In any case your patch is a user-visible incompatible API change and will break existing working setups, so it should only be put in after suitable warning has been given. Maybe we need a module parameter to select between the old and new behaviour to ease the transition. Paul. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/